No, we don't support torture

Would you support torture if you knew it saved American lives and prevented acts of terrorism? Would you support torture if you were serving in combat duty in Iraq, and you knew it would save the lives of your fellow soldiers? If you answered "yes" to either of these questions, you might be surprised to learn that you are in a minority and have been for the past eight years.

We have assembled the first comprehensive archive of public opinion on the use of torture taken since Sept. 11, 2001. Despite unending orange alerts, two wars and the specter of leading political figures arguing for the efficacy of "enhanced interrogation," a majority of Americans continue to reject government use of torture, even when confronted with the "ticking time bomb" scenario.

In 30 polls taken since the 9/11 attacks, the average public approval for American use of torture is 44 percent, ranging as low as 15 percent and as high as 49 percent, depending on the vagaries of the question. When asked most directly if they think it is "acceptable to torture people suspected of terrorism," only 35 percent of Americans express approval.

Apparently the basic moral sensibilities of the public exceed those of former Vice President Dick Cheney. (These findings represent general populations and are not broken down into subcategories such as religious or political affiliation.)

The Bush/Cheney administration dismissed the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture as quaint luxuries amidst the ugliness of modern warfare.

A poll conducted by the U.S. military of soldiers serving in Iraq found that 56 percent of Marines and 59 percent of Army personnel opposed the use of torture even if they knew it would save the life of a fellow soldier! A larger majority, 61 and 64 percent respectively, opposed torture as a way to gather intelligence.

False consensus

Why have so many politicians and journalists so badly misread the strong majorities opposed to torture? A recent survey we commissioned helps shine a light on this question.

Psychologists describe a process of misperception -- false consensus -- whereby an individual mistakenly believes that his or her viewpoint represents the public majority. False consensus has a long legacy in social psychological research, but our survey is unique in that it examines for the first time how it may have shaped the public debate over torture.

A national opinion poll taken among 1,000 respondents just before the 2008 election shows that nearly two-thirds of Americans overestimated the level of national support for torture.

Surprisingly, however, false consensus did not operate evenly across the population.

The stronger an individual supported torture, the larger the gap in his or her perception. In fact, those who believed that torture is often justified -- a mere 15 percent of the public -- thought that more than a third of the public agreed with them.

Another 30 percent said that torture can "sometimes" be justified but believed that 62 percent of Americans agreed. On the other hand, those most opposed to torture -- 29 percent of the public -- are the most accurate in how they perceive public attitudes on the topic.

In fact, outright majorities in favor of torture are rare anywhere in the world, even in countries that have experienced domestic terrorism in the last 10 years. Only India and South Korea exceed 50 percent support for torture.

And of the 10 countries that have been sites of major terrorist attacks in the last 10 years, most have even smaller pro-torture minorities than the United States, including Israel, Spain and Russia. It appears most publics in these countries think that their security forces can respond effectively to terrorism without recourse to torture.

Some will say such polls are irrelevant. They will say that none of the techniques used by the CIA and U.S. military constitutes torture. They will assert that the United States does not torture; it uses enhanced interrogation, so these polls are looking at the wrong things.

The Bush administration memos recently released by the U.S. Department of Justice, the new Bybee and Bradbury memos, offer a list of these "not-torture" techniques, including waterboarding, forced standing, stress positions and sleep deprivation.

Yet when the "not-torture" techniques are described in polls -- and the word torture is not used -- a clear majority of respondents still oppose their use.

This is so even when Americans are assured that the prisoner has high-value information and the technique has a high probability of success. All this bodes ill for those who believe that public hearings will vindicate those who authorized enhanced interrogation techniques and have asked for the release of memoranda showing that enhanced interrogation techniques worked.

Fairness and decency

Government claims of torture's success always have been highly exaggerated in the past. In 1972, the British Parker Commission claimed that the torture of 14 prisoners in Northern Ireland resulted in the prevention of 85 terrorist attacks, the arrest of 700 IRA soldiers and the capture of hundreds of weapons. None of these claims was ever substantiated.

The French have yet to release all the documents on torture squads in the terrible Battle of Algiers. Historically, the more data government makes available, the more it has worked against the torturers and the more it has vindicated those who believe that good counterterrorism policy is based on public cooperation and "soft skills" in interrogation.

It is a welcome sign of American democracy that both sides in the torture debate favor releasing more documents. Few remember that the French torture crisis led to the collapse of the Fourth Republic and a near military coup a few years later against General de Gaulle.

On Nov. 4, 2005, Sen. John McCain submitted the following statement in his request to amend the Army Field Manual to prohibit cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of American-held prisoners:

"We are Americans. We hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment no matter how terribly evil or awful [our adversaries] may be. To do otherwise undermines our security, and it also undermines our greatness as a nation. We are not simply any other country. We stand for a lot more than that in the world: a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad."

The American public has spoken in support of McCain's statement in 30 polls since Sept. 11, 2001. It does not believe that the use of coercive physical interrogation is justified, even if it works. What is reflected in the polling data is that the majority of Americans support the principles of fairness and decency, even when there are more expedient means at our disposal.

Darius Rejali is the author of the award-winning book "Torture and Democracy." Paul Gronke studies public opinion and American politics. Both are professors of political science at Reed College.